The Dialogue: Drone zones and bans on boards and snowmobiles
On Alta ski resort’s fight against snowboarders
Carlson Peters: Every skier or boarder has a blind spot. On today’s crowded slopes everyone must practice defensive riding. Hard to believe that Alta is wasting their money on lawyers to defend this. I’ve always thought that the objections to snowboarding was more an issue of a generational divide. There were older, more mature skiers, on the one hand, and younger less inexperienced boarders, on the other. But, of course, nobody could have argued against letting teen-aged skiers on the slopes because they were inexperienced. This is more about maintaining exclusivity at Alta. The old folks are rightly concerned that their little mountain club will be overrun by boarders and that they will need to raise prices and build more lifts to accommodate the surge. Safety issues are merely a smokescreen.
Drone zones proposed on ski slopes
Wade Doidge: I think most people will be highly disappointed. Very few skiers/boarders actually are even worth the pixels to document their “epic” descent down that groomer. Just look at the wasted YouTube bandwidth since the GoPro era. Leave the noise, disruption (and danger) of drone filming to the film companies that have skiers and crews that know what to do, and only after they have had proper planning and permitting.
Mike Weeda: This is a terrible idea. The first time I hear a drone overhead while sking will be the last.
Dave Yost: I doubt there is anything in the Colorado ski code that protects a resort if some officially sanctioned drone makes a wrong turn and crashes into somebody. The $4000 baby is probably pretty big. Personally, I’d rather ski where I don’t have to see these things.
Tom Clancy: If there is any money to made on this Vail Resorts will be the first resort to do it.
Reaction to snowmobile ban on Summit roads
Jessica Miller: “[County commissioner Kairn] Stiegelmeier later said snowmobile drivers have used Baldy and Boreas Pass to access public lands closed to motorized use.” Yeah and D-bags also use interstates to access public lands that are closed to motorized use but you’re not gonna close I-70. That is a ridiculous argument. Skiers go places that they’re not supposed to but the U.S. Forest Service isn’t out there closing land because of it. These ski-sympathizers need to get a life, there are millions of acres for skiers to use. They already got all of the “summit huts” that the forest service owns designated for ski use only. The forest service takes and takes and takes, never adds. Especially when they have yet to produce one study showing that snowmobiling is more harmful to land than skiing.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.